Politicizing Science

An anonymous reader writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the government's efforts to remove independent scientific review boards and replace them with officials that match the views of administration. This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy to help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"

Comments

AFAICT:

[edrugtrader]

michael can post whatever he wants... case in point.

Re:AFAICT:

[hobit]

Consider the following quote from the end of the article:

HHS's Pierce said the committee remains balanced overall, and no prospective member of any advisory committee is subjected to political screenings.

"It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."

At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.

Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."

This clearly relates to science as practiced in the USA. If one can't hold a science job because of views on physician assisted suicide, I'm not real sure our government is finding the best people to advise it. I'd say something like this belongs on slashdot.

Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Its all fine and dandy to say you can vote out the Government if you don't like the way they're running things... but with the truth being that governments are often the puppets of the large corporate lobby groups and their funding, having the governments interests running scientific research means that your getting McDonald's (fast food), Phillip Morris (tobacco / entertainment) Pfiezer (drugs) interests being served by the scientific community. Not science for the sake of science. Funnily enough these large corporations aren't interested in curing cancer, but rather selling product and making a profit. These prime directives interfere and oppose the Scientific communities general urges to do research for the good of society.

Fast answer is Bzzzt. WRONG

Not science

[dswan69]

Then it isn't science. Review by independent scientists is a fundamental part of science. Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.

Re:Do you trust your politicians ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you trust Bush government on defining Science? Would you trust Nader?

No and Yes.

See "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (http://www.commoncouragepress.com/rampton_sludge. html)

More and more it seems to me that Bush has been taken his cues from Stalin...

As if

[Anonymous Coward]

As if the committees weren't biased before.

'"It's very frustrating," said Paul Gelsinger, who became a member of the committee after his son, Jesse, died in a Pennsylania gene therapy experiment that was later found to have broken basic saftey rules.'

Bet that guy's impartial.

To be expected

[_Spirit]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if an administration's chance of being re-elected is mainly made up of the amount of contributions they get from companies, isn't it to be expected that the administration will make policies favoring these companies. This is not a political statement, just an observation.

Scientific Report

[nuggz]

A proper scientific report should clearly explain what and how the new information was found.

All the pros and cons should NOT be included.

For instance a report on the use of the "Morning After Pill" shouldn't contain the entire abortion arguement. It should as clearly and consisely as possible explain what new information was found.

Re:In the short run, this will make for bad polici

[thales]

"Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway."

Did they trust Clinton's stacked boards? The Dems get a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Tree Huggers, so they put Tree Huggers on the boards. The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards. No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice.

Re:Sure they do!

[Rooktoven]

*we vote em out of office and get someone new.

This only works in countries that have legitimate elections though.

It was NEVER science!

[overunderunderdone]

These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.

The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.

Re:Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRON

[nanojath]

WARNING - mostly relevant to USA, sorry ya' damn foreigners...

Question: how do you vote? It's a serious, not a rhetorical, question.

I agree with you... up to a point. It's hard to ignore the steady increase in the amount of money being spent on elections and the consistent pulling of the teeth of any attempt at campaign finance reform (golly, remember way back before the "world changed..." you know, back before everybody learned that a)airplanes are flammable, b)tall buildings are easy targets, and c)there are a lot of people out there that really hate the USA? Remember way back before that, when we Americans were all so oblivious to the danger of somebody flying an airplane into us that we were actually getting a little tiny bit worked up about "campaign finance reform" for a little tiny while? Vaguely? No? Yeah, well it was a long time ago...)

Despite this almost everyone I know falls to the thinking that "if I don't vote for corporate sponsored candidate X corporate sponsored candidate Y will get eleceted... and that will mean the end of the world!" When I tell my friends that I've lost the belief that there is a substantive difference between DFLer and GOPers, (a SUBSTANTIVE difference, mind you... yes they have very different rhetorical platforms and will tend to split on certain key issues... abortion, for example...) they ger VERY ANGRY.

I had "liberal" friends who got VERY ANGRY at me for voting for Ralph Nader in the presdidential election... despite the fact that it was a sheerly strategic vote, to help increase minor party power in Minnesota, because I KNEW Gore would carry MN (freaking Mondale carried MN, okay? Dukakis carried MN) and so my vote had no impact on the outcome of the national election. They got ANGRY at me.

So, how do you vote? I vote strategically. Because the sad fact is that I can't find anyone to vote for that I think has a snowball's chance of getting elected who I would actually like to see elected. To be honest, most of the people I vote for would probably be lousy or at best inneffectual if they actually got elected. But at least a little tiny bit of federal cash gets put somewhere besides the epic battle of "Business as Usual" versus "Same Old Same Old."

I look at Bush the younger, who took his "he believes in the Federal government and I believe in the People" rhetoric to Washington and has proceeded to orchestrate the biggest Federal land grab for power at the expense of individual liberty (read the stinking P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, okay... and remember that only 1 Democrat, 1 Independent and Three conservative Republicans had the grapes to stand up for the constitution in the face of terrorism...) that has occurred in my lifetime. Like smaller government? Well you'll like the huge consolidation of federal power that will occur under the flag of "Homeland Security" (would someone please tell me when I started living in a homeland? I was certain I lived in nation...)

Or I look at Clinton and the Democrats... As dirty on Enron as any Republican, soft as warm butter on the environment, civil liberty, corporate reform. I love the way my friends who enjoy the occasional "mind altered" experience vote Dem because Democrats are Liberal and Liberals are more "Enlightened" in drug law reform... despite the fact that the most draconian anti-drug legislation of the last two decades was written by Democrats in a mad dash to prove they were "tough on crime..." and despite the fact that Bill Clinton signed legislation that, had it been in effect when his OWN BROTHER was convicted for cocaine posession, would have put him away for TWENTY YEARS. Jeezus, what the hell kind of people ARE these?

So, I continue to vote as strategically as I can to facilitate some foothold of independent action agains the corporate-sponsored "divide and conquer" strategy which has so effectively dismantled the relevance of representative democracy in this nation. Honestly, I'd like a better option, I really would. How do YOU vote?

What it means to have the highest perspective

[wytcld]

In response to those posting stuff like, "Clinton appointed tree huggers; turnabout is fair play": There's a real question of whether our leaders want to lead from a "commanding position." A commanding position is one in which they have the best perspective, which requires the best advice from all sides. If you look at Clinton's compromise on the NW forests, you'll see that whatever you think of how the compromise was balanced, he had advice from all sides, and showed evidence of awareness of that advice in his own final position.

The point is, the leader needs an overview. That's why the general stands on the hill over the battle; why the CEO has a corner office high on the tower; why the pharoah is symbolized by the pyramid, and the pyramid crowned by the eye.

Instead, in Bush, we have someone who wants to lead not from a high perspective that folds into itself the partial perspectives from those with lower vantages, but from the trenches, convinced that the only higher perspective he needs is that of the God who put him there - a God at whose right hand, if you trace the money, was Enron.

From the article:

"It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."

At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.

Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."

Re:Science is biased and agenda-driven

[catfood]

Case in point, when Carl Sagan says that there are probably billions of other life forms in the universe, is this based on scientific analysis of the factual evidence, or because of an eager, heartfelt desire to prove their existence?

It's based on an eager heartfelt desire to go find out!

That's what science is: "I don't know, let's find out!"

Re:Do you trust your politicians ?

[rgmoore]

No. Research should not be political; the decisions that our government makes about research are political. There are two basic ways that research and politics should interact:

• Politicians decide how much money we should be spending on research of different types.
• Politicians listen to researchers to get advice about matters of public policy where the research is relevant.

I don't have a big problem with changes in the first one. I don't think that our leaders should let their personal religious beliefs guide what kind of research they support, but ultimately that's why we have checks and balances and elections. If one group of politicians makes a stupid choice that way, I have confidence that another group will disagree and the second group will eventually get a chance to reverse the decision. That may take a while, but it's all part of the democatic process.

What really stinks is when people try to undermine the advisory function. I want my legislators and government regulators to be making decisions based on the best scientific advice they can get. If one or a small number of people can set up the committees so that they'll give the advice that those people want rather than the advice that the latest science suggests is correct, that undermines their purpose and the democratic process. That would allow a handful of people to define the agenda and bias the decision making process, which is exactly contrary to the advisory committees intended purpose.

Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve

[the_rev_matt]

In case you weren't aware, our constitution explicitely sets forth the doctrine of separation. It's in the First Amendment. The government has no business determining what is and is not "moral", which is fortunate because I don't believe that any politician is qualified to make that decision.

Note that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" were both added to our culture after all the founders were dead and buried.